AGP Card to get 125 fps or 333 fps on lowest settings

I play COD2 and was looking for a very cheap upgrade to my system as I currently play with an mx420 and 256 RAM. I can buy a stick of 512 for like $45 on newegg, but I need some video card advice. I just want to know what card can keep me at 125 fps stable and locked at lowest settings and what one can keep me at 333. Remember lowest on DX7 is what I'm shooting for.

Yup, I have a old crappy Dell and I'm a 16 yr old looking to give it one last improvement so I don't get kicked off my CAL team lol. I would love something to give me 333, but 125 is fine if it's dirt cheap. I only have a 2.53 P4 and 250w psu, so I will be so bottlenecked, it doesn't even matter. I'm getting a job soon anyway and will be saving up for a Core Duo/8800 system anyway. Just looking for something quick to give me stable fps that I can actually play well on because 40-90 unstable fps on my dying out MX420 64mb aint cutting it.

Why such a specific FPS? You aren't going to see a difference between 333 and 125 FPS I guarantee it.

It's a bug in the q3 engine.
It causes some weird effects. You can jump higher, and the sound of footsteps become further apart and can even dissapear totally.

didn't they fix that?

here's some good deals on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ATI-RADEON-X80 [...] dZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Geforce-Nvidia [...] dZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/FX-6200-Nvidia [...] dZViewItem

i'd try and win that x800 pro. don't pay more than $70 for it though.

hmmm... will those cards give u the fps u want though? i can see the 9600 maybe... but not so sure about 9250. let me do some googling.

I don't want to pay that much and also, I will be running on DX7 and it will be on lowest resolution. 6800 would give you probably 333 on the settings I want to play at.

then why the fcuk did u post in here if you already knew the answer?

jesus h christ.

[/getting tired]

i'm sort of doing payroll at the moment... i'm a little short on patience. lol.

I don't think that you could do tue x800 because of your low power PSU. Last I checked the x800's were definite power suckers, and a 250 watt power supply would just not cut it. Probably the 6600 or the 9800 would work.

Hey mate :

Actually it's Impossible to have such a high FPS with your processor .

COD2 is a CPU bounded game .. that means it depends on your CPU to boost it's frames , for example at 800 x 600 with the lowest visual settings and a P4 3.0 GHZ HT .. a 6600GT will play the game at 90 FPS stable .

at 1024 x 768 FPS is 90 stable .
at 1280 x 1024 FPS is 90 stable
at 1280 x 1024 Extra textures .. 87 ~ 90 stable .

As you see , you must have a more powerful CPU to boost your performance especially in this game .. if you installed 1.2 patch the game wil depend in your CPU even more , By using Multi-Threading or Multi-cores !


I would recommend a 7300GT 256MB a 90$ NEW !
a very decent DDRII card with 4 vertex shaders that should handle the game very well with even DX9 ! don't worry you'll get good FPS with it .

May be the normal 6600 128MB ?

But be AWARE : you won't get those fancy 125 FPS with your CPU .. instead expect 60 FPS stable !

Your power supply WILL go bad if you put any decent card in there.
I'm thinking a 9600 something.
You have a 250 watt that's years old.
Maxing out at prob 220 now.
You cant have a card that uses 50 watts itself.

May I ask what dell system you have exactly?

I have a dell 4550 that I've modded for fun and some games..
I might be able to help if you tell me what model you have....

Why don't you offer your friend who upgraded to 7800 like $20 for his old card?

Also, I still don't understand the 125/333 FPS theory you are stating here. Are you saying that at ultra high FPS it's super smooth, which makes you play better?

I got 512 Crucial DDR-333 RAM and a 9600xt. Big improvement from my previous 256mb of RAM and a MX420. Thanks for the help on the suggestion for the 9600! It should run pretty damn close to how I want it to. All I have to do is install it in the agp slot and download drivers and uninstall my old drivers right?

People have run 7600gs on it with no problems before so I don't think the PSU will be a problem. Dell underrates their PSU's, while GFX card makers overrate theirs.

Oh, and the 7600gs could run off the electrical signals from your brain, so saying your psu can handle it isnt saying much at all really.

125 FPS with a Radeon 9550 ? well your freind must have a very powerful CPU .. because as I told you no matter what Video card you have .. COD2 is a CPU bounded game .

if you noticed here a 6600GT is far better than a 9550 ..and yet it scored 90 with a better processor !

you said you got a Radeon 9600 right ? .. well then , run the game and see if it even exceeded 60 FPS !

see this picture :


using a Core 2 duo X6800 and an X1900 512MB .. the game scored 188 FPS .. and you're telling me that your friend play it at 333 ?!!

obviously he is just exaggerating ..may be this is his maximum .. but this will never be his average or stable FPS !

look at the picture again a P4 EE @ 3.7 GHZ barely scored 150 FPS .

I think that's on DX9 dude because there are so many people that will tell you they get 333 constant with 7600's and up. Nobody's exaggerating and if you want to go to the CAL forums and ask what everyone gets for FPS, it will prove you wrong. I got 130 stable in buildings in Carentan with my MX420, so I think your statistics are very old and messed up. Also, a 7800gt gets 333fps on any map with any kind of a decent pc. Those statistics are inaccurate and you can tell by asking anyone who plays COD2 at low settings.

Who cares if they got it? You're eye can't tell the difference above 30 FPS for most people, 50 FPS for the psychos. 333 FPS... that is such BS.

COD2 is a sweet game though, good pick for a game to play. I'm more a fan of the origonal, but the sequel does the first justice. Have fun I guess, even if you don't get those absurd FPS.
-cm

Fcuk you are annoying. You kept repeating the same thing over and over again. Go play your game and get your unatainable fps

Guys, this has been argued about so many times that I keep this link handy.

FPS

*edit* took typo out

Good link, Dade. I'm not sure it supports the poster's arguments though. 330 FPS is ridiculous in a game, but the link seems to indicate that 125 is not as bad or even beneficial...
-cm

'

No, you are wrong the human eye cannot tell a difference between maybe a max of 80 FPS (MAYBE if you have the reflexes of a cat) and 125 and higher. I think you might be getting confused with a DROP in FPS when action gets heavy maybe? There is just no way you can tell a difference between 60 and 125. Unless you are inhuman.


You can tell a difference for sure in FPS games. I play at a set 100fps because thats where I stop noticing a beneficial change. 30fps is unplayable for a FPS, 50-60 is annoying. You may argue you can't see more individual frames per second after 30-50, but the game runs smoothers overall at higher fps.

I stick to 100fps being my maximum perceived fps. My monitor is 75hz.